# Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||

locally_finite_topology_subset [2016/09/14 15:37] nikolaj |
locally_finite_topology_subset [2016/09/15 01:42] nikolaj |
||
---|---|---|---|

Line 13: | Line 13: | ||

Like many properties, this is a notion of smallness. It's not about the smallness of a subset $U$ of $X$, but smallness of a collection ${\mathcal C}$ of subsets $U$ of $X$. | Like many properties, this is a notion of smallness. It's not about the smallness of a subset $U$ of $X$, but smallness of a collection ${\mathcal C}$ of subsets $U$ of $X$. | ||

- | You may consider a well choosen sample of neighborhoods (the sets $V\in{\mathcal T}$) and ${\mathcal C}$ ought to be finite with respect to that sample (countable //pro// $V$). | + | You may consider a well choosen sample of neighborhoods (the sets $V\in{\mathcal T}$) and ${\mathcal C}$ ought to be finite with respect to that sample (finite //pro// $V$). |

=== Dicussion === | === Dicussion === | ||

- | A topologal space is paracompact if it has a cover with that property. | + | * A topologal space is //paracompact// if it any cover has a refinement with that property. |

+ | * The sample of $V$'s above may be very big, so ${\mathcal C}$ is really only small w.r.t. the sample. In a //compact// space, on the other hand, the cover itself is finite (and you don't need to consider that sample). | ||

+ | * Note that the name //locally compact// is already used for the situation where every point $x\in X$ has a compact neighborhood $V$. | ||

=== Reference === | === Reference === |